LTC 222-2004 Miami-Dade County Election Department Information
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Manager
Letter to Commission No. 222-2004
m
From:
Mayor David Dermer and Date: August 17, 2004
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M, Gonzalez Q ~
City Manager 0
Miami-Dade County Election Department Information
To:
Subject:
The attached three (3) Miami-Dade County memorandums are transmitted to you for your
information:
1. Memorandum from Constance A. Kaplan, Supervisor of Elections, to George M. Burgess,
County Manager, dated August 14, 2004, RE: Feasibility Study for Optical-Scan Equipment.
2. Memorandum from George M. Burgess, County Manager, to Honorable Alex Penelas, Mayor,
dated August 14, 2004, RE: Feasibility Study for Optical-Scan Equipment.
3. Memorandum from George M. Burgess, County Manager, to Honorable Alex Penelas,
Honorable Chairperson Dr. Barbara Carey-Shuler, Ed.D, and the Board of County
Commissioners, dated August 16, 2004, RE: Elections Department Logic and Accuracy Test.
C: Murray Dubbin, City Attorney
Jean Olin, Deputy City Attorney
~~
JMG\REP
0
0"
J:)R-
'oJ rn
,
r't f',,) ()
,--"".. a --n
==,.;
Vj J:>o <
::;!:
0 m
.." -
.." .. 0
c.o.l
('") .&.-
/"TJ
F:ICLERICLERIFORMSICounty election memorandums.ltc,docF:ICLERICLERIFORMSICounty election memorandums.ltc.doc
From:
George M. Burgess
County Manager
Constance A. Kaplan
Supervisor of Elections
Feasibility Study for Optical-Scan Equipment
M~;'~d~~ndum
q.~-
~
MIAM~
tm'I.mJ
Date:
August 14, 2004
To:
Subject:
As you requested, attached is a feasibility study in response to the Mayor's memorandum of August 4,
2004, which requested a study of using paper ballots and optical-scan equipment during our fall
elections. The report includes the research completed by the Department of Procurement Management
(DPM).
Availability of Optical-Scan Eaulpment
The Department of Procurement Management (DPM) initiated market research to determine the
availability of optical-scan voting systems for use in the November 2004 General Election. The
parameters set forth for surveying the market involved the identification of 1,500 optical-scan units
(units), 1,000 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant touch screen machines and four high-
volume Scanners. All systems considered in this analysis are certified for use in the State of Florida.
One of the deciding factors in determining whether a conversion to a new voting system would be
feasible within a two month period was the availability and delivery of a new system by September 1,
2004. Additional supplies (bubble paper, ballot boxes, etc.), maintenance and support services were
included in the survey. Since 7,500 lighted voting booths are needed in order to implement countywide
use of the optical scan system, the market was also surveyed for availability and pricing of booths that
accommodate the ballot size used by the Miami-Dade Elections Department. Please note that the
prices provided in the attached procurement analysis (Attachment A) have not been negotiated.
Additionally, some of the firms are not registered vendors with Miami-Dade County.
Three companies manufacture optical-scan units that are certified for use in the State of Florida:
Sequoia Voting Systems (Sequoia), Elections Systems and Software (ES&S) and Diebold Election
Systems (Diebold). DPM contacted each of these companies in order to assess their ability to provide
the number of units required by the County. A representative from Sequoia advised that the company
declined to participate in the survey, citing concerns regarding voter education, manufacturing and
delivery schedules, as well as timing of implementation. An ES&S representative advised that 500
Units could be offered by the company at a cost of $5,200 each; however, they could not offer a
commitment to the September 1, 2004 delivery requirement or ensure that the equipment would be
available by the November 2004 General Election. Diebold's representative prepared a comprehensive
proposal which included the 1,500 Units, four high-volume scanners, supplies and 7,500 voting booths.
Thirty Florida counties currently utilize the systems proposed by Diebold. The company's proposed cost
for each unit is $4,200.
Due to the proximity of the date of the November election, the Diebold representative expressed
concerns regarding such issues as logistics, delivery, timing, implementation planning, risk-mitigation
strategies, training, logic and accuracy testing, voter outreach, program development for the printed
ballots and deployment. The company stressed the importance of developing a strategic
implementation plan immediately, should the County decide to procure the optical system. Without the
County's commitment to such a plan and collaboration with the proposed vendor, Diebold would not
consider participating.
The response from ES&S addressed only the availability of the optical-scan units. This vendor did not
provide additional information regarding other items listed in the market survey.
The Elections Department identified a need for 7,500 self-standing, lighted, plastic voting booths for the
market survey. DPM staff identified three companies, in addition to Diebold, which offer voting booths:
Election Works, Election Data Direct and Hart Intercivic. Three models of the required quantity are
available from Election Data Direct for delivery on September 1, 2004. The prices for these three
models range from $110 to $159 each. The Diebold proposal includes a voting booth priced at $167
that is available for a phased-in delivery schedule beginning September 1, 2004. Election Works
indicated that had they received the order by the week of August 6th, they would have been able to
begin manufacturing the third week in August in order to initiate delivery September 1, 2004, with a
completion of delivery of all booths by September 20, 2004. Hart Intercivic offered to deliver 1,000
booths three weeks after receipt of an order, with the balance of the delivery to be completed within ten
weeks after date of order.
One of the three vendors, Diebold, indicated that they are willing and able to offer Miami-Dade County
an integrated optical-scanning system including a touch screen ADA-compliant component and
associated services for support In the November General Election. It is important to note that the
vendor is not able to adhere to the required delivery date of September 1, 2004, but is willing to
coordinate a phased-in delivery schedule to meet the County's needs. Diebold is the only vendor that
has indicated the ability to offer an integrated optical-scanning voting system given the compact
timeframe.
Elections Loaistics
The complex nature of our current voting equipment requires a high level of logistics planning that
includes training of election staff and poll workers, voter outreach, deployment plan and extensive
security procedures. Converting to a new voting system would require a new structure for all the
components of our elections logistical plan.
For Countywide elections, we currently train more than 7,000 poll workers and more than 800 County
staff, including 550 election specialists at polling places as well as trainers, roving troubleshooters and
Election Day telephone bank personnel, representing nearly every department. For the August 31,
2004, Primary Election, we began training in early July, beginning with our "train the trainer" sessions,
followed by our pollworkers and election specialists. These sessions were conducted daily at 11
different locations throughout the County. In the event that we convert to an optical-scan system prior
to the November election, we would need overwhelming support from non-Election Department County
staff and a "turnkey" operation from the vendor to be able to provide effective training.
We would also need to revise the polling place table of organization to add additional county staff
support at precincts. Our current polling place table of organization includes a clerk, assistant clerk,
several inspectors and a poll deputy. In addition, each precinct has an election specialist, a trained
computer-proficient County employee who is trained in activating, deactivating and troubleshooting our
current voting equipment. To convert voting equipment In a period of two months and ensure that the
elections will be successful would require an additional County employee with managerial and
troubleshooting skills at each of the precincts to provide quality assurance and an added level of
comfort to ensure that the optical reader is operated correctly. This addition would double the need for
County personnel in our polling places alone, from 550 to more than 1,100, in addition to our trainers,
>.'
troubleshooters and other personnel. In addition, the Elections Department would need to begin
training staff and poll workers immediately. We would need for the vendor to supply us with procedures
manuals for the new equipment in late August. The training of 7,000 pollworkers and more than 1,400
County personnel, including the 1,110 on-site polling place personnel along with trainers,
troubleshooters and other personnel. would take place the first week of September, one month earlier
than planned with the current voting equipment. In addition, we would need to expand our training
program by increasing the number of sessions that pollworkers and County employees are required to
attend. Currently. we benefit from our two years of experience with our current system and, thus, a
minimalleaming curve for pollworkers and County staff, most of whom have worked previous elections.
The difficult September 2002 election was an example of what can happen when a system is entirely
new for everyone involved in the process, and the County cennot afford to repeat a similar experience.
The new equipment would also require an expansion of our voter outreach/education program, just as
many voters have now become comfortable with the process of voting on our current equipment.
We have an extensive voter education program in place, In which we conduct more than 100 outreach
programs, reaching more than 12,000 voters, each month. In July and August we conducted over 300
outreach event If a new voting system is implemented, our current voter education program would
require major adjustments. We would need to implement a more extensive outreach program to ensure
that every voter has the opportunity to leam about and feel comfortable with the new system. This is
especially true for a Presidential Election, in which the County historically experiences the highest voter
turnout. For example, in November 2000. 72% of Miami-Dade Voters tumed out for the Presidential
Elections. Additionally, whereas our outreach efforts currently focus on a variety of important topics.
including voter registration and restoration of felon rights, the urgent implementation of a new system
would necessitate an almost single-minded emphasis on voting equipment.
We would have to increase our efforts and coordinate with all community groups and media venues to
disseminate infonnation to the voting public. We would require assistance from the vendor in creating
voter education materials and an action plan. We estimate that a minimum of 4,000 outreech activities
would need to be scheduled to attempt to reach the County's 980,000 registered voters. With
extraordinary round the clock effort, we would be able to coordinate just under 450 outreach events
during a two month period which certainly would not reach the number of events needed to reach
Miami-Dade County voters.
Converting to a new election system would require that the Elections Department reduce the amount of
resources needed to properly deploy and set up voting equipment. The current pre-Election/Elections
Day procedures and operations would have to be amended in accordance with processes necessary to
conduct elections utilizing optical scan voting equipment. In addition, we would need to condud on-site
sUlVeys of more than 550 polling locations to ensure that each facility is adequate for conducting
elections utilizing this new optical-sCiin voting equipment. Our security procedures would need to be
revised amended and would need to be filed with the State Division of Eledions.
Conclusion
It is my professional recommendation, based on 35 years of elections experience, that the County not
pursue changing the current voting systems before the Presidential Election. If the County decides to
convert to a new system, I recommend that the change be based on a more thorough analysiS and, if a
decision to procure a new system is made, that the County have ample time for implementation in order
to assure a smooth transition. A 9-to-12 month timeframe would allow for a more manageable
transition for the new voting system by rolling it out gradually during elections with lower voter turnout.
cc: Alina Tejeda Hudak
<I:
C
.,
E
.s::
()
~
ffi ~ .~~ ~~~~ ~~~ '
~ ~ ~ .~~_~_P_R"'_ _ ~
wii!::: !NIX
E 11.- - ~
..
~~~. ~ 8.
"'0
w ~g ~~Co
o :z: .r"" ri - - ~
ii2 ~ r- 3l ~ ~
II.W '"
C ollilr"'~"":il!ilN""""~O
W Iiii Q)<D
c~
ffii=
:::I!:Z:
:::I!~
80
w
iii:
!;?oologo
c '~~ '~og
~ ~1ci~B~ -~~~
Wii!rg ~~~~~
E II.reJr;-
M
co
CD
~
M
M
,.
u)o
EO
CUco
- ~
U) U)
>dE
tncu
c(/)
0"""
.- 0
-
u "-
cu 0
--
w u ~
"t:I~~ i
'0 C ~ . ~
.a .," r-
cu C ~i *~~~
'c-O-gll 0 E
t: "':! e ~
cu II!:: Q,~~
.... ~~ l'J'l;l~
... ii a.~ ~
~!i: "''i? ~ e ".,
1;.-!2:l.. ~ :8e~~l!!<II
:u ~~~f.~ U1H~"
In c.=~~!Il !7~~::S~"
WU".s::E - l'JdloE
1I..!:gu~ !~"~E!'''dl
e,dla.il.!: olQ-iii~
:z:J:IQ r.::~ l"~-J"
III ~ i s'2>!; ~
~ ca_'C~~E
...:=~::l.l!l0"
::! i J:I .s: e ~
3: ." .. -I"'"' 2 ()
III 6cn ~~~
~ J:I ~ cbtlll}Ji
C 1:l1:lL~I"'~
~ ~rnrnll~
~go 0 0
00 0
~gi~k3P.~_;:;g
w_ NT""18 ~.....
CJU~ .ric.O~
ii!<I: "'~
II.W '"
...
IS!~""
~~;~
5:i
0;:)
l:!o
~ & .IN........
~~
bo
-~~
g
logo
'~8g ,
_IO!.<D 0_
'" 0
5'l
"'0
'i5l R
-~ ~
, ,rg~s~~~~~~i~~~~~ , ,
1":t.a.jQi.fci-~~rt'~A. -~q~. fll. -1M -
~<D l'" ~ ~'" ...
C""J_ ~ IT""" .....
'" ....
~~~~~::g~~~~~~~' ,
1M I"'JI N..... N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
gg
" ~~
"'....
~~
.=~~ ';~~~
.R~. ill. "'_ . w'- qlcJ:t
ll)!1;2 ...,.10....,......,....,
il:i~ ....
,~~~ ~
~~~ ~
0;
, ~~~
~g~
~~
i"'i'"
~
" ,~~~ ~
~~fa ~
...:kD"f:{ <D
~!<<J~_ N
.r
~
,~~~
~~
~
...:
~
~
~
<II
..
~ E <II g
:I ~ ~ p~
~ 8 Z! g~ ~5
a e <IIep u~~ .r1l~9~ ~
8. II It ~ p::<II '0"..5 Ilii
i~l: ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~dlX!O~~~ I~
~" ~~~!~!~! ~~~~~~8~~~7~
~~ ~&~=~IO~ P~3~~~~~~ ~
~~ B~i~~ ~~~~e~~~~<II~~~~~
l~ ~~~~~ ~%~~%~~~~ll~~~~~
...E E
"~I!
€.~ Ql
;.., ~
~~<II
1-5 '0 13
ffi Ii t:
F e ~
t:",:8~
I 8. 5~-::
".5.l9 Jl
iaJ~~~
"'....
.fi~w~w
gf5 Ol,() 00 0
gi..; '~~~~g:li~~;~~m ' ,
~ MN N
....
~!~~~ -~~&~~~g~~~~~
II>
II>
-......
tn_
~~
tn-
Wi
_co
M
. en
U I
CN
-0
~~
~ ~ II> ... ...
cu . 0 g
~ D.: 5'l ~
0>
(/) 5
"t:I .-
C s:::
cu cu
U) (/) ~
E C !
cu 0 ~
- U) 6"
UJ - "C 0
>0 cu ~i
~~ H
o cu ~f
...c -~
g ~ !~
_ CU hl!='
w:E $~.l!
'E !II ~
::l~'"
~~ ~
- !!?lil!
e,,~
~ ~ ~ l'l
B~~ t
=1-i"C
~~s I
8~~ E
it.':! ii
_105 W
-81~;' .!!I
~~! i
Q)
Cl
(Il
ll.
g 8 g
g g d
"i. N 8
an .n to
N
-
..
fl
'C
II.
I
E
;:I
.,
w
i'ii
~
0)
~
N
or-
I
It)
.....
~
0
or-
It)
ft
~ f/)
C)
CI) "
- c
e ca
-
- tIJ
. (/)
U ~ C)
C C
- C .-
ft -
f/) 0 0
E .- >
-
ca C)
CI) ...
- - c
f/) f/) ~
~.-
(/) .s Q.
C) E Q.
C " :J
.- <( tIJ
-
0 f/) ~
>
CI) 0
ca -
.- ca oj "
0 (/) E C
:;:;
:J - .. CI)
C" C ~ >
CI) CI) 1ii "
(/) " 11
.- CI)
f/) '[ 1::=
! ... 0
~
D.. I f/)
I f/)
CI) <(
U .!!!
.- ;;
> .!:
ft ~
...
CI) s
- .!:
f/) I>
0 "
LL. ~
- 'tl
.- li
.c ::J
D.. E
~
"'" "1; "'" "1; 11'- .<: "
,,'" .5 I::! - 'EQ.~ ~~~
j:;; ~ ~ "" ~ ~~ 0::::1 :Ill)
I> III ~~ -8.!! ~'OCf)'O,~ "~'"
,= 'tl ._ , III _I>JlB {l ~
I!! " ... ,,= ,,= ~{j" ".!I! III
8.'0 " .- 8.'0 C>>CI)C:~ 8..<: -
a III .Q =
z :;:;"0 I> me. " "'E c as ::::I 4)::=
LIl ~ B ."." ."." ~~ & U) "Qo~
:& " " g{l s&i "'tl,,
:& J2{'! _Il a-i'" ~5j8
..,., ~B .. ,., 1S.0 ,,:5
8 " ::J ".c ".c '8 ~'~ i
.- III Qj ~ ,- .. Qj~ Qj ~{'!
- ~ ";'~ ~'t: "Il ,,~::J
~ .~ .~ ;: .'E l!cnsc:, , I> .,
8~ ;;~ ....:a.:: 0)- ;; 'E '"
Qj Qj G)I'O~ a "
LIl " " 0" 1ij Q)Q. o "'j
2: '" I::! 'S: OJ I::!}; M Q. E ~,~
... " :!::: "5 :S ai~ j ... a
LIl :e QS._ CJ Q; '~
C .. '" l!! 'iij 1>'<: .,
I::! .,.-
:!: :!: ..-8eas
",O:!:'E
~ a
g g g g g 0
0
LIl :ii d Ifi d d g
U N :2l ~ ~ :2l 0
ii2 iii fl iii g li i
D. <D ~
'" ~. ~ ~
~ ... ;; ... ;;
0 0 Ie 0 I~ g
... 0 0 Ifi
re ai ~ Ifi It) d
It) ~ ~ :::
LIl ~ ~ ~ ~
u
ii2
D.
... ... ... ... ... ...
0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0
fil fil 0
It)
... ... ... ...
~
I-
U ,., ,., ,.,
~ i ~ i ~ "" ~
Z .. III '0 ~
0 :I: 0:: :I: 0:: ~
U ,., ,., ,., ,., ,.,
" " " " "
" ~ " " !: "
III III t2 ~
<I) <I) <I)
~
i!
" 1:) 1:)
l!! l!! l!!
~ is j is 0 is
!!I ~ :2: !!I
~ III 't1 III
0 0
:5 " " " .sa :5
a a a .5
tl tl tl '" tl
~ t
.!! " Il III .!!
W iil iil w :I: W
-
- .<:
:c '"
.<: '} :c
'" '" - -
... ~ '} .<: .<: .Ql
W '" OJ 0:: 3i
Q g 0 '} '} W
0 g Ii; ~
:E 0 w ~
N N b ~
... ..J <I)
W W > > ..J ..J
0 0
0 0 ..J ..J ..J ..J
..J ..J 0 0
:::; :::; ..: ..: 0.. 0..
N
Gl
Ol
III
0.
Date:
August 14, 2004
d MIAM..
Memoran um EmU
To:
From:
Honorable Alex Penelas
Mayor
George M. Burgess
County Manager
Feasibility Study for Optical-Scan Equipment
Subject:
In response to your memorandum of August 4, 2004, I asked the Miami-Dade County Elections
Department and the Department of Procurement Management (DPM) to evaluate the feasibility of
procuring and implementing an optical-scan election system for use during the November 2, 2004,
General Election. As requested, the departments analyzed all relevant issues, inClUding the availability
of optical-scan equipment, logistics, training of election staff and pollworkers and voter education. The
report containing their analysis is attached.
Assistant County Manager Alina Tejeda Hudak has been an integral part of the Elections Department
for almost a year, and she has kept me continually immersed in the Department's operational details.
As the elections approach, my own personal involvement has escalated. Along with Mrs. Hudak, I
attend the Department's weekly staff briefings to ascertain its progress in preparation for the upcoming
elections. I must say that the more time I spend interacting with the Department's staff, the more
impressed I am with their dedication and, by extension, the more confident I become that our upcoming
elections will be a source of pride for our County.
At this point in time and given all of our preparations to date for the August and November elections, I
would be extremely reluctant to convert to a new voting system within only a two-month time frame. If
the County decides on implementing a new voting system, it would be advisable to properly plan a
structured implementation with ample time, at a minimum of 9 to 12 months from acquisition planning
through training and actual use. The analysis conducted by the Elections Department and DPM
indicates that even though surveyed prospective vendors would stand to benefit from the sale of new
voting equipment, all of them shared concerns regarding the logistical realities of implementing a
completely new voting system with so little time remaining before the November General Election,
These concerns appear to be consistent among all the firms contacted and must be seriously
considered before pursuing the purchase of any new election system. Essentially, if the firms cannot
guarantee a successful implementation and integration of new technology into the Erections
Department so late in this election cycle, the County would bear the burden and risk of challenges, both
the foreseeable ones described in the attached report as well as the inevitable unforeseen challenges
associated with any major system/process change.
We need to be cognizant of our decision and the reality that should the County choose to replace our
existing voting equipment with a new optical-scan voting system, an extremely expedited procurement
process would be required. To make such a major policy decision a special Board of County
Commission meeting would be necessary. The attached DPM research was based on the assumption
that if the County determined that a new elections system was necessary, it would be procured in mid-
August for a September 1st delivery date. While I am confident that the August 31st elections will be
successful, I do appreciate the need to consider alternatives if warranted after the 31st. While highly
unlikely, in the event that a decision were to be made to procure an alternate system, staff would
immediately meet to negotiate and determine whether the firms can meet the delivery time frames in
the original market research. This recommendation would require DPM to resurvey the firms and would
require an expedited procurement process.
Additionally, Supervisor of Elections Constance Kaplan has also expressed her concerns about
converting to a new system and the effects it would have with such a short time frame before the
November election. She is concerned, based on the County's well-documented previous experience
with implementing a new voting system within a short period of time, that a rushed decision which is not
based on ample research could result in mass confusion and, at worst, chaos.
I understand that your fundamental concern in requesting this evaluation is voter confidence, and the
greatest boost to voter confidence will come from a successful August 31st election. Each kind of voting
equipment has its own advantages, and optical-scan equipment does provide the paper trail desired by
some voters. However, I believe that a rushed implementation of a new system would present more
challenges than benefits. Not only as County Manager, but most importantly as a voter in Miami-Dade,
I share the community's demand for free and fair elections. I am always open to suggestions and
recommendations that work toward that goal. I embrace your desire to maintain an open mind toward
changes that may benefit our County in the future, and I am not opposed to researching this option at a
later date. At this time, f think it is of utmost importance that we allow the Elections Department to
focus passionately and singularly on conducting successful August 31a1and November 2nd elections.
cc: Murray A. Greenberg, First Assistant County Attorney
Alina Tejeda Hudak, Assistant County Manager
Constance A. Kaplan, Supervisor of Elections
Date:
August 16,2004
d MIAMI-.
Mernoran urn tmm
To:
Honorable Mayor Alex Penelas
Honorable Chairperson Dr. Barbara Carey-Shuler, Ed.D
Board of County Commissioners
From:
George M. Burges
County Manager
Subject:
Elections Department Logic and Accuracy Test
On August 13, 2004, the Miami-Dade County Elections Department, with crucial Input and support from
other County entities including the Audit and Management Services Department (AMS), Enterprise
Technology Services Department (ETSD) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), conducted its
most extensive Logic and Accuracy (L&A) Test ever. I agreed with our elected leaders that the test
should go well beyond simply meeting our statutory obligations, and in fact, the test did approach
Election Day conditions both in its scope and the length of the process. A canvassing board consisting
of Vice-Chairperson Katy Sorenson and Supervisor of Elections Constance A. Kaplan presided over the
process. I was present for the entirety of the test, having spent more than 16 hours at the Elections
Department facility during the day. I would like to update you on both the overall success of the
process, as well as several issues and areas in which I expect the process to improve.
AMS randomly selected 212 iVotronic units out of the County's inventory of 7,200 units. The units
selected represented all of the 222 unique ballot styles to be used in the August 31, 2004, Primary
Election, as well as all Early Voting sites. All three of the County's official languages __ English,
Spanish and Creole -- were tested, as were Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant audio units
for our visually-impaired voters.
The test began shortly after 7 a.m. with a "scripted" voting session, in which the 212 units were opened
for voting, zero tapes were printed (indicating the absence of any votes cast prior to the beginning of
voting) and the machines' public counts (much like an automobile's trip odometer) were verified to
indicate zero votes, as well. The scripts were developed to ensure that every ballot position (every
candidate and every answer to ballot questions) received at least one vote, and in most cases multiple
votes, on every ballot style. Elections Department staff serving as "voters" signed in and received their
scripts, in the form of paper optical-scan absentee ballots. They were then paired with scribes, whose
task was to ensure that voters properly followed their scripts. After voting an entire ballot, a voter
stepped aside and allowed the scribe to observe the review screen and verify the choices the voter had
made. Auditors from AMS observed the entire process. Once all were in agreement that the proper
selections had been made, the ballot was cast. A total of 4,016 ballots were cast during scripted voting,
counting both the electronic votes and the paper ballots, which were also tabulated. Scripted voting
lasted until approximately 3 p.m. The iVotronic units were then closed in the same manner as they
would be closed on Election Day, and Elections Department personnel printed results tapes to reflect
the votes recorded by the machines themselves before tabulation. This would allow the canvassing
board to determine if any discrepancies were the result of voter error (i.e., not properly following the
script with errors not detected by scribes) as opposed to indicative of true equipment issues.
Page Two
Subsequently, a period of "unscripted" voting allowed members of the public and media to make their
own selections on both optical-scan ballots and iVotronic units. Sixteen units were randomly selected
for this process. Observing the unscripted voting were scribes, AMS auditors and a bank of 16
mounted video cameras so that any discrepancies could be reviewed to determine if, in fact, votes were
simply not properly recorded on paper, which would not be indicative of an equipment issue. Six voters
participated in the unscripted voting session. I hope that in the future, as the public becomes more
aware of the opportunity to test our equipment, participation in unscripted voting increases. I have
asked Mrs. Kaplan to increase publicity and awareness, of this opportunity.
After all units were ciosed, the Personal Electronic Ballots (PEBs) containing precinct results were
taken to a designated Collection Center located in the Elections Department warehouse, in a process
mimicking that which occurs after polling places. There, the results were uploaded from the PEBs onto
a laptop computer, and the data was subsequently transmitted via phone line to the Department's
Tabulation Room.
I am pleased to report that the test was an overall success, with results indicating that our electronic
voting equipment did, in fact, properly tabulate votes. The expected outcomes (based on the known
scripts) and actual outcomes from tabulation matched each other.
Still, the process did leave room for improvement. I observed several issues and have asked Mrs.
Kaplan to implement my recommended resolutions, as well as any others she may identify.
Specifically while the scope of the test, as well as its openness and involvement of the public, was
indisputably a net positive, the process could have been better organized. Several "bottlenecks"
occurred during the day, resulting in, by my estimation, possibly hours of unnecessary delays, I
understand that this first extensive L&A test was a learning experience for our County, and many last-
minute decisions about the procedure, based on late but important input from stakeholders, caused
adjustments and delays. I have expressed to Mrs. Kaplan that I expect more comprehensive written
procedures in the future. Many tasks could have been performed more efficiently. For example, in the
tabulation room, I observed that personnel spent nearly an hour sorting absentee ballots before the
tabulation could begin, even though this task could have been performed by a separate team of
workers earlier in the process. The expected challenges of this first-of-a-kind test would be less
acceptable in the future, and Mrs. Kaplan has told me that she understands that.
Recent media accounts of our test indicate that the media and public were generally impressed by our
County's efforts to go well beyond what was merely required of us, and the test reaffirmed my
conviction that these kinds of efforts are necessary to generate increased voter confidence. I will
continue to keep you informed of our progress related to this and other election issues.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
c: Alina T. Hudak, Assistant County Manager
Constance Kaplan, Supervisor of Elections